100-400 II and 135 f2 L to Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS II (+ remaining kit shuffle)

[privatebydesign]

I wish people would stop saying you can't use Canon TC's on the 70-300L, you can, though in limited form and if your body won't focus with f8 lenses you are screwed for AF. Canon specifically included the functionality in firmware updates for at least one camera, the 1DX, which can AF at f8.

It does give limited zoom range due to the protruding element on the TC but if you are putting a TC on then presumably you are focal length limited anyway.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I agree that it's very uncool that Canon doesn't include the tripod collar with the 70-300L lens and charges a ridiculous amount for it separately. However, I haven't missed the collar since the lens is pretty light and also since the focus and zoom rings are swapped. If I had the collar on the lens, I wouldn't be able to hold and zoom it the same way I can with the 70-200L.

And FYI, I use a Kenko 1.4X DGX TC with my 70-300L often with good results. So you can do it, just not with the Canon TC.

How good is that 70-300L + Kenko 1.4 combo? I tried it once with a second hand Kenko but it just wouldn't work at all, assume the Kenko was defective and sent it back. Would be interested in trying it again though.

And as I've said before, I think Canon made the right call on balance NOT including the tripod collar with the 70-300L. However, I won't back them on how much they charge for it as a separate item!

When I used the 70-300L + Kenko 1.4x TC Combo I was shooting with the 5D3. Hence the need for more reach. I was satisfied with the results. I didn't feel like the AF was terrible but I was shooting swimmers in a pool in crappy indoor sodium vapor lights so I had to do plenty of post editing anyway. I haven't used that combo for other types of action in outdoor light, etc.

The Tamrom 1.4x TC I have DID NOT work correctly with the 70-300L. It caused weird noises and weird jumping of the IS when the AF occurred so I didn't put the lens on that TC anymore after the first short test.

 

[TeT]

I would suggest the efs 15 85 instead of the 17 55, it fits your range issues with the 24 105 & the 10-22 and only loses the fixed 2.8 to the 17 55 nothing in image quality....


and keep your 70 200 2.8 IS II, make sure the 100 400 does everything that you use the 70 200 for, as well or better, before DXing it...

 

[Joey]

I wish people would stop saying you can't use Canon TC's on the 70-300L, you can, though in limited form and if your body won't focus with f8 lenses you are screwed for AF. Canon specifically included the functionality in firmware updates for at least one camera, the 1DX, which can AF at f8.

It does give limited zoom range due to the protruding element on the TC but if you are putting a TC on then presumably you are focal length limited anyway.

The rear element of the 70-300 moves in and out of the barrel of the lens, when you operate the zoom control and also when you operate the focus, either manually or automatically. The Canon TC protrudes forwards into the lens barrel and at shorter zoom settings, and shorter focus distances, the rear element of the lens would crash into the front element of the TC (or the rubber bumper which surrounds it). I would not be prepared to risk the delicate autofocus mechanism by running any risk of that happening. The only way of using it would be to remember that when the TC is attached I can't zoom back below a certain point. Too much potential for forgetting in the heat of the action, methinks.
If I caused damage by trying this I wouldn't get far claiming on the warranty from Canon, since they specifically state the lens is not compatible. They're right, of course.

 

[bholliman]

Interesting thread.

Similar to the OP, I would love to add a 100-400 II to my kit, but my wife is already really unhappy with me over my recent purchase of a 16-35 f/4 IS. So, it will be some time before I can get away with another significant equipment purchase - unless I sell something of similar value. I have thought about selling my 70-200 2.8 II to fund the 100-400 II, but really hate to part with my favorite lens... I have a 135L and 100L so have some portrait lens options if I sell the 70-200.

I probably will not do it, the 70-200 2.8 is just to damn excellent and versatile, but its an interesting mental exercise.

 

[bluenoser1993]

The 70-200 2.8 IS II seems to sell pretty well, so I'm not too worried and will definitely hold onto it until satisfied with the performance of the 100-400II, with plenty of reassurance to my darling that only one will remain. Seeing as she still takes photos on her phone more often than with the M I bought her, she might not be able to tell the two of them apart :..... I'll say no more about that.

Good comment regarding the MTF information with the 1.4x attached. It looks very good on the MTF, but I hadn't thought about the diffraction at f8 keeping you from attaining the theoretical. At f8 that is only getting started, so I'll keep my fingers crossed. I'm still hoping that the resulting 560mm will be better than the 400mm I'm getting on the 70-200. If the testing shows it isn't, then that will probably cause an all stop on the changes I'm making on the long end of my kit. Depends how good it is with just the lens.

 

[Botts]

Nice choice on gear.

That should suit you very well for the kayak photos. As most of the races are during the day, lens speed shouldn't be much of an issue.

The 135L is a sweet, sweet piece of kit. I love the thing, just make sure you do your AF Microadjustment as at f/2 the focal plane is very thin.

Off-topic, but if they're in K1, they'll likely become some of the fittest people you've ever met. I trained with an ex Team Canada K-1, C-1 guy and the cardio strength was insane. I paddled slalom and played canoe polo, so not a lot of sprinting in my background, but any paddling is sure a good way to keep fit.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

You know, if you are planning to do shooting while in/around the water, a Pentax K series might be something to consider. They are very rugged and weather sealed. Much more so than any other DSLR except the little Nikon AW1 which is actually supposed to be submersible. (Come on Canon! Release a better EOS M that will compete with the Nikon AW1!)

 

[docsmith]

I'll take a slightly different tact.

Why sell your 70-200 II, losing 20-30% of its value, and replace it with a 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2? Sure you gain a stop(+), but you lose range and IS.

I would consider having your kit be the 17-55 f/2.8 (I personally had the 15-85 and loved it), 70-200 II, 100-400 II. Those are some great lenses covering a wide range.

 

[luckydude]

Before:
7D, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 2x III, 10-22, 24-105L, 35L, 50L

After:
7DII, 100-400 II, 1.4x III, 17-55 f2.8, 50L, 85 f1.8, 135L

I'd nix the 85 and go with the 15-85 IS. That's a nice lens, I have it (and the 85, if forced to choose I'd choose the 15-85 in a heartbeat).

You might think about the 70-300L, nice lens from what I hear.

I'd be interested in your 70-200 and the 35L.

--lm

 

[rs]

Good comment regarding the MTF information with the 1.4x attached. It looks very good on the MTF, but I hadn't thought about the diffraction at f8 keeping you from attaining the theoretical. At f8 that is only getting started, so I'll keep my fingers crossed. I'm still hoping that the resulting 560mm will be better than the 400mm I'm getting on the 70-200. If the testing shows it isn't, then that will probably cause an all stop on the changes I'm making on the long end of my kit. Depends how good it is with just the lens.

Bear in mind that as good as the 70-200 II is, when used with a 2x TC and a 1.6x crop body, the end result is much the same as using a 3.2x TC. That is really pushing it. I'd be willing to put money on the 100-400 at full zoom on a 1.6x body being much better.

Even with a 1.4x TC on the 100-400 and the 1.6x crop factor, it's a lower 2.24x magnification. Still pretty radical expecting to get ~900mm out of a 400mm lens, but it's much closer to sensible limits than 3.2x.

Diffraction is possibly the most predictable form of aberration out there, and mild forms of it (which you'd get with a 1.4x TC even wide open) could possibly be largely overcome with a very mild amount of sharpening in PP.

If you're uncertain, I'd suggest waiting for the digital pictures test chart shots of the lens, hopefully with this body too. Certainly looking at the standard lens to compare bodies, the 200/2, when set the f5.6, there's hardly any resolving difference between a 7D II and a 6D. Big difference between a 7D II and 7D. Let's hope he uses the 7D II as the standard crop body to test with from now on, and does the 100-400 II with/without TC's with that.

 

[gregorywood]

I bought a 7D as my first DSLR mainly because of what I read about the 70-200. I loved the idea of the 2.8 plus it allowed me to add a 2xIII for what I thought would be occasional use. Well, with 4 kids and my wife all in sprint canoe and kayaking the 2x is on more than not, and frankly still not enough lens often. I love using the 70-200 alone, but find that if it isn't at 200, it is mid-range wide open and has made many of my favorite candids of the family.

The announcement of the 100-400 II has had me constantly in deep thought about my entire lens line-up (wouldn't my employer love to know that). Ultimately owning both these zooms would be great, and it isn't so much a financial decision, but if I ever want my wife to smile at me again, there is only room for one of these in my house! So I'm going with the advise I've read over and over here, buy the lens for the focal length you need, and for me that is the 100-400.

At the other end of things, when I have the 24-105 mounted I more often than not wish I could get wider, and when the 10-22 is mounted I always wish I could reach a little further. Also, 90% of the time the 10-22 doesn't get below 16.

Before:
7D, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 2x III, 10-22, 24-105L, 35L, 50L

After:
7DII, 100-400 II, 1.4x III, 17-55 f2.8, 50L, 85 f1.8, 135L

The process has already begun, the 7D is sold (at an obvious loss, but not bad as it was a used purchase), the 10-22 is sold and I replaced it with a 17-55 for even money. The 35L will be tough to let go, but it is mint and I should be in money when I swap for a used 135. The 17-55 is obviously no 35L substitute, but with IS it can actually get non action shots in lower light, and I need the 135L to not miss the 70-200 soooo much.

Am I making crazy moves? I see it as a reduction in flexibility, but covering more of the range I need with zoom, while covering the remaining areas I gravitated to with the current zooms with quality primes.

All comments or suggestions welcome.

I have a 7D and have had the 10-22, the 18-55 and now the 24-105. I briefly had the 15-85 and I now miss it. Even though it is not a fixed aperture, the focal length, IMHO is perfect for the crop body. The IQ was quite good as well. When I bought it, I fretted over the 17-55 as well but after having looked through both at the camera store, 2mm does indeed make a difference.

The only reason I haven't re-purchased a 15-85 is that I've since bought a 6D and the 24-105 is the lens that approximates the angle of view of 15 on the 7D.

I like your choices in your overall kit...it gives me pause to consider (dammit!).

 

[JPAZ]

These are interesting times. I have a 100-400 M1 and have really been thinking about replacing it with a M2 for a lot of reasons that have been stated by others. But, I thought I'd wait a while until more feedback and reviews are posted. This led to a lot of thinking. I am fortunate to have the 70-200 2.8 ii and the 300 2.8 ii along with a 1.4iii and 2.0iii TC. Maybe I'd just use the 70-200 with the TC's and forgo the new 100-400?

Then what happened was a weekend with my Grandson trying to capture photos in existing light while the little guy was on the go. The answer to my dilemma became very clear, I just ordered the 24-70 2.8ii and will stick to my "old" lenses for now.

I guess the answer for me is to get what works for your needs.

 

[bluenoser1993]

Lots of interesting comments and suggestions, glad to see others are also plagued with similar decisions. A change is always good for a different perspective as well I think. If it wasn't for my wife (and young family) I'd probably continue to just fill up my closet, but having that to keep me in check has added the element of carefully thinking out my purchases and trade offs between different kits. fortunately, lenses chosen carefully do hold their value well with Canon.

I liked the idea of 17-55, 70-200/2.8, 100-400II, 1.4X. That's a great range, and close to the same net value (based on used prices of my primes), but I would miss using the f/1.2 to f/2 range. Portraits by candle light and by the campfire are a nice change of pace that often have a memory attached instead of just a pretty face.

I'm away from home, but the plan is coming together. Just need to get back and package up the 7D + 10-22 (still working on the buyer to take the 24-105 as it's cash and saves the listing). The 17-55 and 135L are in the mail, and I've decided to keep the primes I have for now and skip the 85mm and see if I'm happy with the coverage.

7DII (to order yet), 17-55/2.8, 35L, 50L, 135L, 70-200/2.8 IS II + 2xIII pending reviews of the 100-400II

Assuming the new 100-400 is all we hope it to be and the swap occurs with the f/2.8, I may some day have to choose between the 35L and 50L, and trade one for the 70-200/4 IS. I'll be that one guy in the world to have made that trade between the 70-200's :-\

 

[dickgrafixstop]

I'd keep the 70-200, add the 17-85, and get the 100-400. On a crop body, the 85 and the 135 both fit comfortably in the 70-200 range. I'd look to buy either of the other lenses if after living with the first three for a while and see where the "holes" are in your style of shooting. Then I'd buy a very big bag with a very strong shoulder strap and consider buying a gym membership if you don't already have one.